D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Enrahim2]

Is it a historical accident that the game evolved as it did, just because of the personalities involved and their origins in the wargaming world?

It is hardly a D&D evolution, rather the stagnant core principle. Knowing then history is useful for understanding the role. D&D didnt arise from wargames in general, it arose from a very particular branch of wargaming based on the free kriegspiel philosophy. The first Kriegspeil (a german "military grade" war simulation games) was based upon heavily statistical based rules that tried to cover as many possible scenarios as realistically as possible. It still required a judge to handle fog of war effects. "Free krigspeil" was a counter reaction to this in the late 1800s under the idea that an experienced judge would give more realistic judgements than the rules - and hence lead to more accurate simulation (important for real life military training and predictions).

So the judge had to be the one with all the information, responsible to convey it as approperiate to the relevant players due to the fog of war role. With the free philosophy they also had to be the authority of outcomes. However there were usually other players playing all sides of the conflict. Moreover the work of generating scenarios could easily be done by someone not part of the game at all.

I can not find when the important change of folding the role of playing the oposition into the judges responsibilities, but it seem like it might have happened somewhere between the first braunstein game (1969) and the first blackmoor game (1971). In similar timeframe the critical change of going from standalone games to connected scenarios campaigns seemed to happen. This added the requirement for someone to figure out what would be a suitable follow up scenario depending on the outcome of the previous scenario. That was again not something easily ofloaded to external scenario makers, and made sense to belong to the judge as it could be considered a judgement of outcome (per the free kriegspeil mentality)

Now with this as base you got the original D&D, with its extreme concentration of power and responsibility placed on one participant. And while by all acounts Arneson and Gygax could shulder this, it soon became aparent that D&D had apeal beyond the circles having access to judges that qualified for the free kriegspiel assumptions for being better than rules. The further evolution of D&D hence has been characterised by trying to backpedal toward original kriegspeil by adding optional(?) rules on top. That way a qualified judge can disregard those rules and reap the full benefit if the original free kriegspeil philosophy based design, while it is still accessible to those needing more aid. A radical departure from the formula from what I can see typically lead to games that just cannot be played the way the original D&D games was played.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As a general reply to the thread title: A lot less than they believe they need.

I recently ran a session of my 5e campaign using modified Fiasco rules, meaning that the game took place as a series of scenes, and each player, including me, was a co-equal narrator - one person either started or finished a scene, taking turns, and the rest did the opposite. I had some control in that I set up the original scenario and put locations, objects and NPCs into play before the game started, but during play the plot was wide open - it was a mystery and I didn't know who did or why any better than the other players. We worked it out together through the course of the game. It was fun!

This is called "story now" play in certain circles. You are producing story right in the moment of play, as opposed to "story before" (the "standard" D&D model today, where the DM writes the story and the players explore it) or "story after" (the "old school" model, where there is no story at all, except in a retrospective sense, looking back and stitching the actions taken into a story of some kind.)

I also encourage players to improvise plot details that they want for their character, trusting that they too have the best interest of the game at heart. Lately, I have told them that they can add not just suggestions but major plot points, only requesting that they give me time to prepare if the plot point will involve having to create a dungeon or something (a lot of things we can improvise on the fly).

I'm finding that the more control I give up, the more fun I am having at my games. And it is making me suspect that centralizing power in the DM is not as necessary as the rules presuppose. Depending on the group.

Then it sounds like you are learning the value of the "story now" approach: by including players in the creation and development process, everyone gets to experience both the joy of creation and the joy of surprise, and you can achieve both the narrative cohesion of "story before" (because everyone participates in the writing) and the fluidity and spontaneity of "story after" (because the state of play, "the fiction" as some games term it, changes in ways no one necessarily expects.)

If you are finding this appealing, I highly recommend checking out Dungeon World. It will be somewhat familiar to you, since it was built to resemble D&D. And it's a very rules-light game where it's pretty easy to add new features or options for players if you want to. The rules for Dungeon World are extremely good, and can help you develop good intuitions and best practices for "story now" play.

Edit: Ah, they've blocked me. Ah well. It was worth saying for anyone else who is walking a similar path.

 

[Charlaquin]

It depends how you define “need”. Like, you can absolutely play TTRPGs with completely decentralized narrative control. Many games exist to facilitate such play. So, strictly speaking, the answer is “none.” However, there are certain modes of play which do require more asymmetrical power dynamics to work. For example, if the discovery of hidden information is a central element of gameplay, there has to be a game master who knows that information and players who don’t. This necessitates giving the game master a certain degree of power in order to function. This discovery of information has a long tradition in D&D, particularly in dungeon delving and hex crawling play, though it is obviously not an essential element of D&D. But my point is, the degree of control a DM needs in a game of D&D is very dependent on what kind of gameplay experience the group is looking to have.

 

[Oofta]

Dungeon World: I swing from the lantern and land on the ogre's back! OK, roll 2d6... I mean, that's the answer to EVERYTHING basically, there's no point at which the rules 'run out', there's basically one mechanical approach to ALL the action in the game. I mean, granted, there ARE decisions to be made in DW about what happens next, but "how do I handle X" is never a question, the system is, in this sense, 'complete'.

So anything the PC wants to attempt is okay? What if the chandelier is nowhere near the ogre, out of reach, or if the PC is already did all they were allowed that turn. What if there is no chandelier because you're out in an open field? If you haven't had players ask for things that are clearly impossible you haven't played with some of people I have.

At the same time, that was my point. If the rules cover an action then you've just shifted the authority to the authors of the rules. Even if that rule is generic.

You can swing from the chandeliers in my games all you want. But there has to be a chandelier.

 

[damiller]

I think the job of a GM can range from God to Group Facilitator.

But my skills where honed on the forge of a demigod. I learned to run and play games when the idea of shared responsibilities in an rpg was limited to karma or hero points.

And I am not interested in anything but slight incursions into those other areas. I liked Masks for example. I've run it multiple times. But then its straight back to traditional rpgs for me. Its like my dad's cape chisel. I am excited to get these new tools, and I love to outline where they will fit on my peg board (like they have been murdered in an 1940s crime drama), but in all honestly - I won't be using them very much.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So anything the PC wants to attempt is okay?

Anything consistent with established fiction. Just as players need to show trust in their GMs and those GMs' ability to run a good game, GMs need to show trust in their players and their respect for the premise and concept of the game.

What if the chandelier is nowhere near the ogre, out of reach, or if the PC is already did all they were allowed that turn.

DW does not use "turns" as such (combat is more freeform than that), so that concern does not really apply. If it is already established in the fiction that the chandelier is nowhere near the ogre, then the player should already know that, and thus never even consider the attempt for exactly the same reason that they wouldn't consider sliding down the bannister of a staircase that was explicitly described as having no railing (or one where the railing has been broken "on camera" etc.): The fiction doesn't support the action. If the player has simply forgotten, then the other players and GM can remind them, but such forgetfulness should be fairly rare unless the player is being disingenuous, and a disingenuous player is bad no matter what system you use.

Since DW is pure theater of the mind, "out of reach" is a little more complicated. That is, it is a matter of a judgment call for the GM. On the one hand, you absolutely should encourage your players trying to do cool stunts because that's an intended part of playing this game. On the other, simply going for it every single time may not be the best choice for effective challenge and engagement. This is where the Principles provide useful guidance, for example:

• "Embrace the fantastic." More than just a fancy way of saying the rule of cool, this is an instruction to DW GMs that they should lean into the imagined space and its differences from reality. The players are there to play fantastical adventures they can't have IRL. If swinging from chandeliers and sliding down bannisters is what excites and motivates them, in general the GM should go with it, because genuine player enthusiasm is a precious and irreplaceable commodity.
• "Draw maps, leave blanks." Dismissing an opportunity to put a character in a spot or jeopardize a plan for relatively minor reasons is wasteful. Do you need to specify exactly where the chandelier is in the room in advance? If not, then just...don't. It's there in the room. If it becomes relevant, cool, the map gets filled in a little more. If it doesn't, cool, no time wasted on something irrelevant. If the players envision something different from what you envisioned, talk it out. Things not actually nailed down in the fiction should remain flexible, both because that is useful for framing an ongoing and engaging story, and because it enables the players to add to that story in ways you just didn't consider in advance. "Hmm, I thought of it as one big chandelier over the middle of the big table. What were you thinking?" etc.
• "Ask questions and use the answers." It's, frankly, rather dull to answer someone's question about chandeliers by saying that it's simply out of reach and thus impossible. If it makes sense for the chandelier to be difficult to reach, then turn that difficulty into a challenge, perhaps even for a second character: "Aerith, you can see that Bob wants to bring down the chandelier on the enemy's heads, but it's too far for any of you to reach...but you have both your swift arrows and your trusty raven at your side. What do you do?" Suddenly, something being impossible for one person becomes a golden opportunity for another. Obviously, this specific solution does not generalize to all possible parallel situations, but the underlying notion of turning what could be a dead end into an open-ended chance for something to happen (whether by making a risky offer, highlighting another character, showing the upsides/downsides of their abilities, etc.) is a huge part of what makes DW enjoyable to play and to run.

In rare cases, things simply won't make sense, and it is okay to come to that conclusion after discussion. But, as someone who has been running DW for over five years, and played in it for several years a before that, such instances are very rare. Nearly without exception, players are either already doing something consistent with the fiction, or they realize their mistake quickly and adjust to something that is consistent with the fiction. I have never once had to deal with bad faith behavior from my players and I have never witnessed it as a player myself, but in the event of such a thing, you need to resolve the out of game behavior issue before you can address the concerns within it.

What if there is no chandelier because you're out in an open field?

Then you remind them that in order for them to do something, the fiction must support it first. Moves must, always, follow from the fiction. This is represented by two maxims:

• "You have to do it to do it." That is, for the character to perform an action, they must actually be doing the things required. If you want the equivalent of a Perception check (the ridiculously named "Discern Realities"), then you must be closely examining someone or something. If you want to Hack & Slash, you must physically attack an enemy with a melee weapon. Etc. The fictional state of the world, of the character, must establish that an action is taking place.
• "If you do it, you do it." The instant the fiction indicates a move is happening, it happens. You don't get to decide not to roll because you don't feel like Hack & Slash if you (as the trigger phrase says) "attack an enemy in melee." This is not meant to be punitive, it just means that triggers really do set off the move they are meant to set off. (I, of course, give my players an out, of the "is that what you do"/"are you sure" variety, when I am unsure if they are being serious or if it seems like they don't fully understand what it is they are signing up for, so to speak.)

As a result of these two combined, there is a one to one correspondence between fictional triggers and moves: if-and-only-if one, then always the other too. If you're in an open field, there are no chandeliers, no ceilings, no ropes, no balconies, etc.

If you haven't had players ask for things that are clearly impossible you haven't played with some of people I have.

Then your players are playing in bad faith, and it is their responsibility to change that bad behavior. Respecting established fiction is absolutely critical to playing Dungeon World. If they simply cannot be trusted to play reasonably, then it will be impossible for them to play Dungeon World. They are untrustworthy as players, and trust is required for play. I am honestly not sure how you manage to play any system with players you don't trust.

At the same time, that was my point. If the rules cover an action then you've just shifted the authority to the authors of the rules. Even if that rule is generic.

I... genuinely have no idea how to respond to this. How have you done this shift? Why? You are playing by the rules, yes, but the authority is still you. You make the judgment calls. In general, DW is set up so that very, very, very few rules should require judgment calls about whether they occur (see above), but depend utterly on the details, the how and why and what. E.g., with partial success on Defy Danger (effectively the "saving throw" but for...all dangerous stuff, it is probably the single most-used move in DW), the GM must offer "a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice." That you must do so is playing by the rules, but I hope you'll agree that that is an incredibly broad range of options and leaves the GM pretty free to choose exactly how they wish to do it.

So...what does "you've shifted the authority to the authors" mean? Because from where I'm sitting the statement sounds like nonsense.

You can swing from the chandeliers in my games all you want. But there has to be a chandelier.

Which is exactly, and explicitly, what DW requires.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Traditionally, the Dungeon Master assumes god-like powers in a game of D&D. They are the omniscient narrator with power over everything but character choices. They build and tell the story, they populate worlds, they interpret rules. They even have the power to set aside rules and rolls, at their discretion (this is a whole other thread). But lately I've been questioning how necessary this power dynamic is.

I recently ran a session of my 5e campaign using modified Fiasco rules, meaning that the game took place as a series of scenes, and each player, including me, was a co-equal narrator - one person either started or finished a scene, taking turns, and the rest did the opposite. I had some control in that I set up the original scenario and put locations, objects and NPCs into play before the game started, but during play the plot was wide open - it was a mystery and I didn't know who did or why any better than the other players. We worked it out together through the course of the game. It was fun!

I also encourage players to improvise plot details that they want for their character, trusting that they too have the best interest of the game at heart. Lately, I have told them that they can add not just suggestions but major plot points, only requesting that they give me time to prepare if the plot point will involve having to create a dungeon or something (a lot of things we can improvise on the fly).

I'm finding that the more control I give up, the more fun I am having at my games. And it is making me suspect that centralizing power in the DM is not as necessary as the rules presuppose. Depending on the group.

I think both approaches have their value. If you are going the GM power route it should be in service to player agency in my opinion (balanced out by campaign considerations like setting fidelity, and the level of reality operating in the campaign world). I think where GM power can go wrong is when the GM gets set on their own ideas about what they want to happen or should happen, and when they aren't responsive to cues from the players that they are seeking to go another way. For me what makes this approach powerful is the player gets to say what they want to do, and unlike a video game or board game, the GM facilitates fully that interaction with the world (which is why being able to go beyond the rules as written is important---though this has a danger too of the GM ignoring rules when they are inconvenient).

I have played other games that empower players, and I think those are in a way, trying to answer the same problem that GM power creates (though they can also be a response to some ways that GM power gets handled). The one that resonated most with me was Hillfolk because while it allowed me to control elements of the setting and plot it was primarily through dialogue, which had a similar immersive effect I look for in more GM power oriented exploration based campaigns. I think what this showed me, after ages of being skeptical of more narrative systems that either give players greater control of the plot or develop mechanics for facilitating story, is that the problem for me was never players being given power, it was purely about the systems I had played before. So I often encourage people to give it a try (even if they have that same wariness) because it can open up doors in gaming you didn't realize were there before

 

[Bedrockgames]

Depending on the group.

I think this is key with anything. My dad was a salesman and he used to say the difference between a good and a great salesman was whether you simply convinced people to buy something or whether you worked to help connect the customer to something they wanted and needed (I think we have all encountered those two extremes in sales). I think in gaming it is similar. I really would love for people to play the RPGs I play, and certainly would love for them to play the ones I make, but I realized you get more people to play these games over the long hall if you are recommending them to fit a person's expressed tastes and interests. There is always room to grow someone's tastes if they haven't tried something. You can see something they like and point out that this does something similar but from a different angle. But fundamentally it's about whether the group at the table is interested and whether this will fit their style

My go to example is I love the game Hong Kong Action Theatre! It influenced me more than any other game when it comes to martial arts RPGs, but it was always a tough sell to players in my groups because the concept (where you play an actor taking on the role of characters in an adventure) is sometimes too meta for people (I love the concept but I get why some people can't connect to it).

 

[Umbran]

I would disagree. In, say, Fate, especially if you use a bunch of extras and supplemental books, the rules are far from trivial, while having no gaps to be bridged.

Yeah, the rules require a human being to come up with compels and judge on aspect applicability, but it's not like there's a shortage of humans at the table.

Um... this reads like:

The rules don't have gaps, even though we use people and extra rules to fill gaps.

 

[Oofta]

Anything consistent with established fiction. Just as players need to show trust in their GMs and those GMs' ability to run a good game, GMs need to show trust in their players and their respect for the premise and concept of the game.


DW does not use "turns" as such (combat is more freeform than that), so that concern does not really apply. If it is already established in the fiction that the chandelier is nowhere near the ogre, then the player should already know that, and thus never even consider the attempt for exactly the same reason that they wouldn't consider sliding down the bannister of a staircase that was explicitly described as having no railing (or one where the railing has been broken "on camera" etc.): The fiction doesn't support the action. If the player has simply forgotten, then the other players and GM can remind them, but such forgetfulness should be fairly rare unless the player is being disingenuous, and a disingenuous player is bad no matter what system you use.

Since DW is pure theater of the mind, "out of reach" is a little more complicated. That is, it is a matter of a judgment call for the GM. On the one hand, you absolutely should encourage your players trying to do cool stunts because that's an intended part of playing this game. On the other, simply going for it every single time may not be the best choice for effective challenge and engagement. This is where the Principles provide useful guidance, for example:

• "Embrace the fantastic." More than just a fancy way of saying the rule of cool, this is an instruction to DW GMs that they should lean into the imagined space and its differences from reality. The players are there to play fantastical adventures they can't have IRL. If swinging from chandeliers and sliding down bannisters is what excites and motivates them, in general the GM should go with it, because genuine player enthusiasm is a precious and irreplaceable commodity.
• "Draw maps, leave blanks." Dismissing an opportunity to put a character in a spot or jeopardize a plan for relatively minor reasons is wasteful. Do you need to specify exactly where the chandelier is in the room in advance? If not, then just...don't. It's there in the room. If it becomes relevant, cool, the map gets filled in a little more. If it doesn't, cool, no time wasted on something irrelevant. If the players envision something different from what you envisioned, talk it out. Things not actually nailed down in the fiction should remain flexible, both because that is useful for framing an ongoing and engaging story, and because it enables the players to add to that story in ways you just didn't consider in advance. "Hmm, I thought of it as one big chandelier over the middle of the big table. What were you thinking?" etc.
• "Ask questions and use the answers." It's, frankly, rather dull to answer someone's question about chandeliers by saying that it's simply out of reach and thus impossible. If it makes sense for the chandelier to be difficult to reach, then turn that difficulty into a challenge, perhaps even for a second character: "Aerith, you can see that Bob wants to bring down the chandelier on the enemy's heads, but it's too far for any of you to reach...but you have both your swift arrows and your trusty raven at your side. What do you do?" Suddenly, something being impossible for one person becomes a golden opportunity for another. Obviously, this specific solution does not generalize to all possible parallel situations, but the underlying notion of turning what could be a dead end into an open-ended chance for something to happen (whether by making a risky offer, highlighting another character, showing the upsides/downsides of their abilities, etc.) is a huge part of what makes DW enjoyable to play and to run.

In rare cases, things simply won't make sense, and it is okay to come to that conclusion after discussion. But, as someone who has been running DW for over five years, and played in it for several years a before that, such instances are very rare. Nearly without exception, players are either already doing something consistent with the fiction, or they realize their mistake quickly and adjust to something that is consistent with the fiction. I have never once had to deal with bad faith behavior from my players and I have never witnessed it as a player myself, but in the event of such a thing, you need to resolve the out of game behavior issue before you can address the concerns within it.


Then you remind them that in order for them to do something, the fiction must support it first. Moves must, always, follow from the fiction. This is represented by two maxims:

• "You have to do it to do it." That is, for the character to perform an action, they must actually be doing the things required. If you want the equivalent of a Perception check (the ridiculously named "Discern Realities"), then you must be closely examining someone or something. If you want to Hack & Slash, you must physically attack an enemy with a melee weapon. Etc. The fictional state of the world, of the character, must establish that an action is taking place.
• "If you do it, you do it." The instant the fiction indicates a move is happening, it happens. You don't get to decide not to roll because you don't feel like Hack & Slash if you (as the trigger phrase says) "attack an enemy in melee." This is not meant to be punitive, it just means that triggers really do set off the move they are meant to set off. (I, of course, give my players an out, of the "is that what you do"/"are you sure" variety, when I am unsure if they are being serious or if it seems like they don't fully understand what it is they are signing up for, so to speak.)

As a result of these two combined, there is a one to one correspondence between fictional triggers and moves: if-and-only-if one, then always the other too. If you're in an open field, there are no chandeliers, no ceilings, no ropes, no balconies, etc.


Then your players are playing in bad faith, and it is their responsibility to change that bad behavior. Respecting established fiction is absolutely critical to playing Dungeon World. If they simply cannot be trusted to play reasonably, then it will be impossible for them to play Dungeon World. They are untrustworthy as players, and trust is required for play. I am honestly not sure how you manage to play any system with players you don't trust.


I... genuinely have no idea how to respond to this. How have you done this shift? Why? You are playing by the rules, yes, but the authority is still you. You make the judgment calls. In general, DW is set up so that very, very, very few rules should require judgment calls about whether they occur (see above), but depend utterly on the details, the how and why and what. E.g., with partial success on Defy Danger (effectively the "saving throw" but for...all dangerous stuff, it is probably the single most-used move in DW), the GM must offer "a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice." That you must do so is playing by the rules, but I hope you'll agree that that is an incredibly broad range of options and leaves the GM pretty free to choose exactly how they wish to do it.

So...what does "you've shifted the authority to the authors" mean? Because from where I'm sitting the statement sounds like nonsense.


Which is exactly, and explicitly, what DW requires.

So somehow this whole conversation gotten away from from "my preference" and pointing out that every game has limits. Some games are far more open ended than D&D and some are far less. The games have different methods of enforcement of those limits. You know how the pieces move in chess. In D&D you have books of rules and the DM makes the final call, including going outside the rules and filling in the gaps. In other games it's the social contract which means that the group makes the call with rules that act as guidelines.

If you don't have limits you're playing Calvinball. Some person or group of people decide how to resolve everything that happens in the game. Changing terminology or details of how that is done doesn't make a difference. Where the lines on what is allowed or not allowed, how the expectations and limits of the game are enforced, are all on a spectrum. Different games fall on different ends of the spectrum. In D&D there can be a fair amount of variation even following the core assumptions of the game.

Where you draw the line, where you place the goalposts on that spectrum doesn't make a game inherently better or worse. Some people, like me, prefer a central narrator and judge, others prefer games without a GM.